It’s back: District court judge revives SCO v IBM

Decade-old lawsuit exhumed in response to SCO motion for reconsideration.

Sad that Game of Thrones has wrapped up its third season? Looking for some drama to fill the time? We've got just the thing for you. One of the Internet's longest-running and most-hated lawsuits is back: SCO v. IBM has been reopened by Utah district court judge David Nuffer.

The case stretches back ten years to March 2003, when the SCO Group filed a massive $1 billion suit against IBM for allegedly contributing sections of commercial UNIX code from UNIX System V, which the SCO Group (allegedly) owned, to the Linux kernel's codebase. SCO Group claimed that the alleged presence of its proprietary code in the open source kernel devalued its proprietary code and that by making the source code available, IBM had violated its license agreement with SCO Group.

From there, the case spawned other cases and quickly ballooned to a truly ridiculous size and scope. The SCO Group demanded royalties from major companies using Linux and filed suit against several (including DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone. Novell stepped in, asserting that it actually held the copyright to the code SCO Group claimed was infringing, which then spun off into its own major lawsuit. Groklaw has an excellent and intricate timeline of the entire mess.

Throughout the case, SCO Group maintained three central claims: first, that it owned System V code that had been illegally used in the Linux kernel; second, that anyone who used Linux owed them money; and third, because the infringing code was proprietary, SCO refused to actually identify any of the code except under a highly restrictive NDA.

SCO Group CEO Darl McBride kept the fires of negative public opinion well-stoked as the cases continued, repeatedly stating that SCO "owned" UNIX and that there were "hundreds" of lines of infringing code in the Linux kernel (an estimate that was later revised to "more than a million").

Actually determining what UNIX code existed in the Linux kernel was a process that stretched out over a number of years and involved a lot of foot-dragging on SCO Group's part. In spite of numerous orders to produce actual evidence, SCO Group never presented a complete corpus of copied code. Samples of allegedly infringing code occasionally trickled out and were quickly analyzed and dismissed by an angry army of developers. In the end, SCO Group failed to produce anything, and in 2006 the court struck most of SCO Group's evidence.

All of the various lawsuits wound down, though it wasn't until 2010 that SCO v. Novell was definitively settled. Which brings us back, finally, to SCO v. IBM. SCO Group filed for bankruptcy back in 2007, but it's still at least somewhat alive and kicking. In March 2013, SCO Group asked the US District Court in Utah to consider its motion to reopen SCO v. IBM, which has been bouncing around the court system since 2011. The judge it's all landed on, David Nuffer, has decided to reopen the case, but he is sticking to the guidelines IBM has suggested on how things should proceed.

It's too early to tell what the possible implications are, and the new judge is taking things slowly as he familiarizes himself with the case. The parties involved are being asked to provide him with background information and details so that he can have at least some idea of what he's being asked to rule on. Groklaw has a number of predictions of how things might shake out; it's entirely possible that IBM will find its motions for summary judgment against SCO reaffirmed.

It's possible, though, that this latest round will drag on for a number of additional years. "Groan," comments Groklaw's Pamela Jones. "Who can believe this is still going on?"

Since corporations are legally people, doesn't that mean they should be subject to capital punishment? EXECUTE this damn corporation, already.

Ha, ha, not really kidding.

Nope, corporations are super people whose only modern liability is the possibility of (relatively) small fines. Real people who aren't rich can get arrested and thrown in jail for the rest of their life. Real people who are rich seldom face real adjudication. Even the rich that go to "prison" are put into minimal security facilities that are more like vacation facilities than prisons that the proles understand.

Corporations, though, they get the rights they want and none of the worries that normally come along with being a living human being to get those rights.

Cripes. What's the legal version of driving a wooden stake through the undead heart, dousing it with holy water and force-feeding a garlic pizza to it? Needs to have been done already. What a waste of time and effort.

In this case, shouldn't the garlic be inserted in the nether area of the undead?

I do not understand the fascination, nor why geeks expended (expend?) so much energy, attention and time on a fight between two corporate heavyweights.

Because if it goes in SCO's favor then it will affect the entire Linux ecosystem. Yes, we can rewrite the kernel but it will take time, and possibly still be under threat from SCO due to them not fully disclosing every part that infringes.

IIRC, SCO is still the record holder for becoming the most hated company in the industry at a mere six months. Love of SCO is also more likely to initiate fights at tech conferences than love of Microsoft as well.

Of course people much older than I will lament on the whole irony of this case.

AFAIK, SCO, AKA TSCOG< AKA Something else, now consists of just one person, the Bankruptcy Trustee. David Boies signed the deal for legal services all the way through to the end, for a cash payout up front and stock. I bet he seriously regrets doing so.

Again, AFAIK, SCO can't sue over any copyrights issued prior to 95, which left them nothing. Now they are claiming IBM shafted them over Project Monterey, which was a deal that IBM had with the original SCO, and that IBM refused permission to transfer the agreement to the new SCO, all in accordance with the agreement.Someone's smoking crack if they think they're going to get any money out of IBM.

Cripes. What's the legal version of driving a wooden stake through the undead heart, dousing it with holy water and force-feeding a garlic pizza to it? Needs to have been done already. What a waste of time and effort.

Cripes. What's the legal version of driving a wooden stake through the undead heart, dousing it with holy water and force-feeding a garlic pizza to it? Needs to have been done already. What a waste of time and effort.

You forgot to burn the body to ashes!

And then take those ashes and scatter them on the wind, spreading them apart so that the abomination cannot reconstitute itself.

Daniel McBride and his cohorts were fired (although they were hired as consultants for a while). Their old website now redirects to http://www.xinuos.com. However, SCO itself renamed itself as TSG Group, although I don't think it has anything to do with the current TSG Group.

So, who exactly is behind the lawsuit? What entity owns SCO? I know they were suppose to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation), but that was ended when another company announced they were buying SCO. However, that sale never went through. They were suppose to sell their Unix software, but I don't think the sale ever went through.

There has to be some physical body, a CEO or something that represents the company. Who is still interested in pursuing this?

Daniel McBride and his cohorts were fired (although they were hired as consultants for a while). Their old website now redirects to http://www.xinuos.com. However, SCO itself renamed itself as TSG Group, although I don't think it has anything to do with the current TSG Group.

So, who exactly is behind the lawsuit? What entity owns SCO? I know they were suppose to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation), but that was ended when another company announced they were buying SCO. However, that sale never went through. They were suppose to sell their Unix software, but I don't think the sale ever went through.

There has to be some physical body, a CEO or something that represents the company. Who is still interested in pursuing this?

It was reopened by the shell company managing SCO's bankruptcy obligations. Obviously the shell company will have less money for those obligations when this tardegy is finally over and will never rise from the dead again.

Daniel McBride and his cohorts were fired (although they were hired as consultants for a while). Their old website now redirects to http://www.xinuos.com. However, SCO itself renamed itself as TSG Group, although I don't think it has anything to do with the current TSG Group.

So, who exactly is behind the lawsuit? What entity owns SCO? I know they were suppose to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation), but that was ended when another company announced they were buying SCO. However, that sale never went through. They were suppose to sell their Unix software, but I don't think the sale ever went through.

There has to be some physical body, a CEO or something that represents the company. Who is still interested in pursuing this?

It was reopened by the shell company managing SCO's bankruptcy obligations. Obviously the shell company will have less money for those obligations when this tardegy is finally over and will never rise from the dead again.

Better bury that corpse under 15 feet of tightly packed dirt just to be sure.

Daniel McBride and his cohorts were fired (although they were hired as consultants for a while). Their old website now redirects to http://www.xinuos.com. However, SCO itself renamed itself as TSG Group, although I don't think it has anything to do with the current TSG Group.

So, who exactly is behind the lawsuit? What entity owns SCO? I know they were suppose to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation), but that was ended when another company announced they were buying SCO. However, that sale never went through. They were suppose to sell their Unix software, but I don't think the sale ever went through.

There has to be some physical body, a CEO or something that represents the company. Who is still interested in pursuing this?

It was reopened by the shell company managing SCO's bankruptcy obligations. Obviously the shell company will have less money for those obligations when this tardegy is finally over and will never rise from the dead again.

Better bury that corpse under 15 feet of tightly packed dirt just to be sure.

I do not understand the fascination, nor why geeks expended (expend?) so much energy, attention and time on a fight between two corporate heavyweights.

I think for the most part geeks enjoy battles in their arena(internet\technology), we can relate and understand some if it and we don't get much combatant entertainment except from leaks, flame wars and lawsuits. Plus reading an article isn't so much energy\attention\time.

I do not understand the fascination, nor why geeks expended (expend?) so much energy, attention and time on a fight between two corporate heavyweights.

I think for the most part geeks enjoy battles in their arena(internet\technology), we can relate and understand some if it and we don't get much combatant entertainment except from leaks, flame wars and lawsuits. Plus reading an article isn't so much energy\attention\time.

Or geeks and trolls don't mix because geeks call B.S. on the trolls and trolls do...well...what SCO and Prenda do: answer with rhetoric, false logic, and hyperbole at best. At worst: outright lies and rhetoric. As you can see, it doesn't always work out.

Daniel McBride and his cohorts were fired (although they were hired as consultants for a while). Their old website now redirects to http://www.xinuos.com. However, SCO itself renamed itself as TSG Group, although I don't think it has anything to do with the current TSG Group.

So, who exactly is behind the lawsuit? What entity owns SCO? I know they were suppose to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation), but that was ended when another company announced they were buying SCO. However, that sale never went through. They were suppose to sell their Unix software, but I don't think the sale ever went through.

There has to be some physical body, a CEO or something that represents the company. Who is still interested in pursuing this?

I hope Ars are investigating this case further. I want the names of these Assclowns.

OK, now I'll admit I'm kinda dense when it comes down to this type of legal time warp/conundrum/paradox thing on lawsuits, but could some lawyer genius please explain how a corp that has no employees, no place of business, no funds, no assets, no organization, NOTHING, still give orders to attorneys in a lawsuit? Is this a case of the body twitching after the head is removed? Who is left or even authorized, other than the "US court appointed trustee"? Surely it's not him. I mean, come on, he and his friends bilked whatever money there was to be had from the bones of SCOX and trashed the business. Who is Boies getting his orders from today? I hope we're (tax payers) not still paying the trustee to carry this crap on to another generation.

We just said our "fond" farewells to Judge Jackson, and now we've got yet another imbecile in sheep's clothing to contend with? Here's another one who figures he has no life and wants to make a name for himself by latching on to a ridiculous lawsuit that he has proven he doesn't understand by allowing it to continue. SCO's lawyers will no doubt seek to entertain us with more tales of skullduggery and deliciously impossible avarice and intrigue...

Where's a judge Wright when you need him? He'd have made short work of SCO, I'll wager.

I do not understand the fascination, nor why geeks expended (expend?) so much energy, attention and time on a fight between two corporate heavyweights.

Because if it goes in SCO's favor then it will affect the entire Linux ecosystem. Yes, we can rewrite the kernel but it will take time, and possibly still be under threat from SCO due to them not fully disclosing every part that infringes.

Would be interesting to know how much code from 2.0 made it in to 3.0and which version of the kernel is SCO claiming copyright on ?

I do not understand the fascination, nor why geeks expended (expend?) so much energy, attention and time on a fight between two corporate heavyweights.

Because if it goes in SCO's favor then it will affect the entire Linux ecosystem. Yes, we can rewrite the kernel but it will take time, and possibly still be under threat from SCO due to them not fully disclosing every part that infringes.

Would be interesting to know how much code from 2.0 made it in to 3.0and which version of the kernel is SCO claiming copyright on ?

1) Pretty much all of it since the version bump of the Linux kernel was mostly symbolic and 2) every version since every version will have "infringing code," or as most people who can smell B.S. call it "malloc(n * sizeof(char));, which is present in 99.9% of programs out there."

Lee Hutchinson / Lee is the Senior Reviews Editor at Ars and is responsible for the product news and reviews section. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX.